PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION TO …

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
)
Technologies Automotive, Inc., )
as successor to Preferred Technical Group, )
Inc., and LDW Development, LLC )
)
EMERGENCY MOTION TO REMAND
Rodney L. Michael, Jr., Attorney No. 23681-49
Benjamin A. Wolowski, Attorney No. 33733-49
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14 filed 06/29/20 page 1 of 17
1
I. Introduction.
The Raytheon Defendants have conceded that the claims of 77 individual Plaintiffs, other
than the Town of Andrews, Indiana, should be remanded to state court. [See DE #13, at 22–24.]
This case should be promptly remanded—in its entirety—because this Court has no subject
matter jurisdiction over any part of this case. The Raytheon Defendants’ arguments that no
emergency exists is simply incorrect, as explained below, but should have been made to the state
court during the hearing scheduled for June 25, 2020. By scheduling a hearing on an expedited
basis, the state court demonstrated its willingness to rapidly consider these issues.1
The Raytheon Defendants argue that because the Plaintiffs in this matter seek injunctive
relief—a clean-up order—similar in nature to the plaintiffs in Millman v. Raytheon Technologies
Corp., No. 1:16-cv-312-HAB-SLC, their state law claims must be a “repackaged” RCRA claim.
But injunctive relief to clean up contamination is not unique to RCRA. Any or all of the
Plaintiffs’ six substantive state-law claims could entitle them to injunctive relief in state court.
Indiana courts have long recognized that “[t]he trial court has full discretion to fashion equitable
remedies that are complete and fair to all parties involved.” Hammes v. Frank, 579 N.E.2d 1348,
1355 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991).
And even if the Raytheon Defendants were somehow correct that injunctive relief were
not available under the Plaintiffs’ ELA, nuisance, negligence, or trespass claims brought against
them, the result would be that Plaintiffs would simply not obtain relief; it would not create
federal jurisdiction out of thin air. The Raytheon Defendants’ attempt to shoehorn this purely
state-law claim into the exceedingly narrow exception recognized by Grable & Sons Metal
Prod., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005), is off-base, as other courts have
1 Plaintiffs greatly appreciate this Court’s expedited briefing schedule on this motion to remand.
2
correctly recognized that state-law causes of action that even more directly relate to RCRA, such
as a negligence per se suit predicated on a violation of RCRA, do not involve the type of federal
issue contemplated by Grable.
Because there is no federal question raised by Plaintiffs’ state-law claims, this Court is
without subject matter jurisdiction. And because the Raytheon Defendants had no objectively
reasonable basis for removing this case, Plaintiffs should be awarded fees for their Emergency
Motion to Remand.2
II. Reply to the Raytheon Defendants’ Factual and Procedural Assertions.
The Raytheon Defendants dedicate a significant portion of their opposition brief to
challenging the merits of the Town’s Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed prior to
removal. [See DE #13, at 1–9.] The Raytheon Defendants blame, deflect, and omit key facts.
This argument has no bearing on the matter of this Court’s jurisdiction. However, Plaintiffs
would offer four brief points of clarification in reply.
First, it is audacious that the Raytheon Defendants would blame the Town for the present
crisis when its residents have been forced for 27 years to drink from wells sitting in a pool of the
Raytheon Defendants’ toxic chemicals. [See DE #13, at 7–8 (blaming the Town for not
upgrading MW-2 and MW-3.)] Had the Raytheon Defendants not polluted the Town’s drinking
water aquifer—or had they timely cleaned up their mess over the past three decades—the Town
would have clean water so as to be able to use all three of their municipal wells. This is a
problem of the Raytheon Defendants’ own making, not the Town’s.
Second, notably absent from the Raytheon Defendants’ statement of facts is any mention
2 Plaintiffs respond to Raytheon Technologies Corp.’s additional Motion to Sever the Town of Andrews’
Injunctive Relief Claim and (2) Consolidate with Millman-Powell, Docket Entry #12, in a separate brief
filed contemporaneously with this reply brief.
3
of the fact that just six days ago, on June 23, 2020, vinyl chloride (“VC”) was detected at the
maximum contaminant level of 2.0 µg/L in the Town’s finished drinking water. [DE 8–5, at ¶ 8.]
This is not safe, and IDEM has demanded the Town to flush the entire system before anyone
drink this water. (Ex. #1, at 2.) The Raytheon Defendants ignore that their VC made it through
the air stripper and reached end users’ drinking water. Yet they stick to their narrative that “for
25 years the drinking water has always been safe,” [DE #13, at 2], which is just not true.
Third, although the most recent samples taken on June 27, 2020, did not show VC above
the detection limits (see Ex. #2, at 5), this is not surprising, given that: (1) on Friday and
Saturday, June 26 and June 27, the Town flushed its water lines to remove residual VC; and (2)
WH-1, the most contaminated well, remains out of service.3 And WH-2 and WH-3
(contaminated with lower levels of VC) remain insufficient to meet the Town’s water needs. The
Town is certainly thankful that Raytheon has agreed to temporarily provide water tanks for the
Town’s fire department [see DE #13, at 9], but this will only last for 14 days, and in two weeks
the Town’s ability to fight fires will again be seriously compromised.
Finally, with respect to Millman v. Raytheon Technologies Corp., No. 1:16-cv-312-HAB-
SLC (N.D. Ind.), the Raytheon Defendants omit from their brief that Ms. Millman’s initial action
was filed in Huntington County Circuit Court, and removed to this Court on the basis of the
Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). This presents a significant distinction, in that at
the time of Millman’s removal, there was unquestionably federal subject matter jurisdiction, and
the dispute over Ms. Millman’s motion to remand was whether the local controversy exception
applied, warranting remand. See Millman v. United Techs. Corp., No. 1:16-CV-312-PPS-SLC,
3 The most recent sampling results continue to show cis-1,2 dichloroethylene in the Town’s finished
water, indicating again that the air stripper—even when operating—is not removing all of the Raytheon
Defendants’ chlorinated solvents. (See Ex. #2, at 5.)
4
2017 WL 1165081, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 28, 2017). Here, however, there is no federal court
jurisdiction, as discussed below.
III. Reply Argument: This Case Does Not Present Any Federal Question.
Significantly, the Raytheon Defendants have concededed that there is no federal
jurisdiction over any of the claims pled by the 77 individual Plaintiffs, but continue to
erroneously assert that this court has jurisdiction to consider the Town’s request for injunctive
relief. As discussed below, RDs are mistaken.4
Only a “slim,” “special and small” class of cases warrant federal question jurisdiction
absent a federally created cause of action, Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2013). “District
courts in the Seventh Circuit have been similarly conservative in their application of Grable,
particularly where federal law is merely the source of a duty under state law.” Giles v. Chicago
Drum, Inc., 631 F. Supp. 2d 981, 986 (N.D. Ill. 2009). The Raytheon Defendants fail to seriously
address the exceedingly high bar that the Supreme Court has set for them. At no point are they
able to coherently articulate how a complaint, comprised entirely of state-law causes of action,
“necessarily raise[s] a stated federal issue.” They erroneously contend that Plaintiffs’ single
reference to an “imminent and substantial endangerment,” along with their request for injunctive
relief, should convert their state-law claims into a RCRA citizens’ suit. However, as discussed
below, they are incorrect on each point, and this case should be remanded to state court.
A. Millman Has No Bearing On Whether This Case Presents a Federal
Question.
The Raytheon Defendants argue that this case is “improperly” seeking the same type of
injunctive relief sought—a mandatory clean-up order—as the plaintiffs in Millman, and that
4 As discussed in Plaintiffs’ response to Raytheon’s motion to sever and consolidate, the Raytheon
Defendants do not seek to sever any of the Town’s claims, but only one form of relief (injunction). This is
not proper or permitted under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)(2).
5
somehow, this creates a federal question here. This argument is baseless.
First, there is nothing improper about the Plaintiffs in this case seeking a clean-up order
as part of their individual claims. As the Court is aware, Millman was initially filed as a putative
class action. Plaintiffs in this case were, accordingly, putative class members in Millman until the
Court denied class certification on November 18, 2019.
At that point, Plaintiffs’ next option was to proceed just as they have, by pursuing relief
through an individual lawsuit. In Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 354 (1983),
the United States Supreme Court explained that following denial of class certification, “class
members may choose to file their own suits or to intervene as plaintiffs in the pending action.”
Plaintiffs in this case—none of whom are plaintiffs in Millman—have chosen the former
approach. Each of the Plaintiffs possesses their own right to bring their own claims against the
Defendants to seek redress for their injuries—both in the form of money damages and to seek a
clean-up of the Defendants’ contamination. The fact that this may overlap with the relief sought
by the Millman plaintiffs does not impact whether this Court has jurisdiction over the Asher
Plaintiffs’ claims.
B. The Single, Prefatory Reference in the Complaint to Defendants’
Contamination Constituting an “Imminent and Substantial Endangerment”
Does Not Indicate Artful Pleading of a RCRA Citizens’ Suit.
As in their Notice of Removal [see DE #1, at ¶¶ 7, 14], the Raytheon Defendants have
again emphasized the fact that in the very first numbered paragraph of Plaintiffs’ complaint, they
used the phrase “imminent and substantial endangerment,” a term used in RCRA’s citizens’ suit
provision, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B). [DE #13, at 11–12; see also DE #10, at ¶ 1.] The Raytheon
Defendants contend this “parrot[ing]” of § 6972 demonstrates that Plaintiffs have artfully pled a
RCRA citizens’ suit. [DE #13, at 11–12]. More than these four words are required to plead a
6
RCRA citizens’ suit.
Defendants offer no case law to support their argument. Moreover, the case law actually
considering references to RCRA in state court complaints uniformly holds that even more direct
references—such as a claim of civil conspiracy based on RCRA violations—does not raise a
federal question. Giles, 631 F. Supp. 2d at 986; see also Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. Meritor, Inc.,
No. 4:17CV74-SA-JMV, 2018 WL 1309722, at *4 (N.D. Miss. Mar. 13, 2018) (“The meaning of
certain RCRA terms and duties governing Defendant’s conduct, such as ‘compliance schedule,’
or ‘corrective action program,’ may serve as evidence to assist a trier of fact, but contemplating
the impact of such terms is not paramount in determining liability here.”).
As Plaintiffs noted in their Emergency Motion to Remand, the “imminent and substantial”
phrasing used in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint was nothing more than a succinct way to describe
the present situation caused by Defendants’ contamination. [See DE #9, at 2, 13.] Neither the
“imminent and substantial” standard, nor anything in RCRA more generally, will govern the
resolution of Plaintiffs’ state-law claims. See, e.g., Ind. Code § 13–30–9–2 (standard for ELA
claim). That is, there is no federal issue, statute, regulation, that is “actually disputed and
substantial,” to be addressed by this Court. Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2013) (quoting
Grable, 545 U.S. at 314). “Imminent and substantial endangerment” is not a talismanic
incantation that transforms a state law claim into a RCRA citizens’ suit.5
C. Plaintiffs Have Chosen to Bring Only State-Law Causes of Action.
The Raytheon Defendants do not disagree with the basic premise that Plaintiffs’ well-
pled Complaint, on its face, raises only state-law complaints. They argue, however, that this case
5 Evidence that Plaintiffs have not intended to bring a RCRA claim is abundant. For example, Plaintiffs
did not provide the mandatory pre-suit notice to the USEPA or IDEM, as required in 42 U.S.C. § 6972(b).
As such, this suit contains no viable RCRA claim. See, e.g., Hallstrom v. Tillamook Cty., 493 U.S. 20, 32
(1989) (failure to comply with § 6972(b)’s notice provisions warrants dismissal).
7
looks a lot like a RCRA case because “municipalities, like the Town of Andrews, have on
several occasions sought to use RCRA to compel action concerning contamination that the
municipalities believed was affecting its drinking water supply.” [DE #13, at 14.] Plaintiffs do
not dispute that municipalities can bring RCRA citizens’ suits; but the Plaintiffs here, including
the Town, have expressly chosen not to. Because “the plaintiff is ‘the master of the complaint,’
the well-pleaded-complaint rule enables him, ‘by eschewing claims based on federal law, . . . to
have the cause heard in state court.’” Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc.,
535 U.S. 826, 831 (2002) (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 398–99 (1987)).
D. A Clean-Up Order is Not Exclusive to RCRA — Plaintiffs’ Request for
Injunctive Relief Does Not Convert this Case Into a RCRA Citizens’ Suit.
The main thrust of the Raytheon Defendants’ argument on the existence of a federal
question is that this must be a RCRA citizens’ suit in substance because Plaintiffs could not
possibly obtain injunctive relief through any other vehicle. Again, they are plainly incorrect.
1. RCRA Does Not Preempt State Law in the Field of Environmental Clean-
Ups.
RCRA is not a complete preemption statute. On the contrary, it expressly preserves state
law causes of action relating to environmental contamination:
Nothing in this section shall restrict any right which any person (or class of
persons) may have under any statute or common law to seek enforcement of any
standard or requirement relating to the management of solid waste or hazardous
waste, or to seek any other relief (including relief against the Administrator or a
State agency).
42 U.S.C. § 6972(f). Subsection (f) indicates that “RCRA specifically preserves state law
remedies to fill gaps that may be left by its scheme.” Albany Bank & Tr. Co. v. Exxon Mobil
Corp., 310 F.3d 969, 973 (7th Cir. 2002); see also W. Virginia State Univ. Bd. of Governors for
& on behalf of W. Virginia State Univ. v. Dow Chem. Co., No. 2:17-CV-3558, 2020 WL
8
2842057, at *6 (S.D.W. Va. June 1, 2020) (“RCRA imposes the minimum standard of
remediation and corrective action with which defendants must comply, see 40 C.F.R. § 264.100,
but WVSU is free to seek and obtain additional or alternative relief to the extent it is entitled to
that relief under state law.). In Albany Bank, the Seventh Circuit held that “[s]imply because
under some factual circumstances RCRA might not require the complete elimination of Exxon’s
pollution from Albany’s property does not preclude the possibility that Illinois law might impose
exactly this type of duty.” 310 F.3d at 973. The same is true here; under Indiana law, Plaintiffs
have the right to seek the complete elimination of Defendants’ contamination from their property
and the Town, despite the Raytheon Defendants’ argument to the contrary.
2. Injunctive Relief is Available Under Each of Plaintiffs’ State Law Causes
of Action.
The Raytheon Defendants’ entire argument hinges on the indefensible position that none
of Plaintiffs’ state-law causes of action would entitle to them to injunctive relief. The Raytheon
Defendants are simply wrong. As noted at the outset, Indiana courts plainly recognize that “[t]he
trial court has full discretion to fashion equitable remedies that are complete and fair to all parties
involved.” Hammes v. Frank, 579 N.E.2d 1348, 1355 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991). This overarching
equitable power has been consistently applied to each of Plaintiffs’ theories of liability.
Trespass: Indiana courts have long recognized the availability of injunctive relief for
trespass:
In the early history of equity jurisprudence courts of chancery uniformly refused
to restrain trespass of any character, but in recent years the courts have repeatedly
broken through this rule and now it can be said that cases in which equity will
restrain trespass to realty are grouped as follows: (1) When the legal remedy is
inadequate because the injury is irreparable in its nature; (2) when the trespass is
continuous or repeated wrongful acts are done or threatened; and (3) when the
legal remedy is inadequate because the trespasser is insolvent.
Harris v. Krekler, 46 N.E.2d 267, 269 (Ind. Ct. App. 1943). Harris itself affirmed the trial
9
court’s issuance of an injunction to halt a continuing trespass. Id. Three decades later, the Court
of Appeals explained: “[t]he law is well-settled that an injunction is a proper remedy to prevent a
continued trespass.” Selvia v. Reitmeyer, 295 N.E.2d 869, 875 (1973) (citing Harris, 46 N.E.2d
at 269; Evans v. Shephard, 142 N.E. 730 (Ind. Ct. App. 1924); Fisher v. Carey, 119 N.E. 376
(Ind. Ct. App. 1918).
More recently, in Liter’s of Ind., Inc. v. Bennett, 51 N.E.3d 285, 300 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016),
the Court of Appeals held that a permanent injunction should be entered requiring a landowner to
remove a portion of a roof that extended over a neighboring property. The court concluded, “the
continued existence of the Appellee’s roof extending to Liter’s property would involve a
continuing trespass. According, injunctive relief is the appropriate remedy on remand.” Id.
Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that the Defendants’ contamination has and continues to
invade their properties. [DE #10, ¶¶ 188–92.] Under Indiana’s longstanding jurisprudence on
trespass, injunctive relief is available to Plaintiffs for Defendants’ continuing trespasses. Selvia,
295 N.E.2d at 875; Harris, 46 N.E.2d at 269.
Nuisance: Similarly, injunctive relief is an entirely appropriate remedy to abate a
nuisance. Indiana Code § 32–30–6–8 expressly allows injunctive relief to abate a nuisance: “If a
proper case is made, the nuisance may be enjoined or abated and damages recovered for the
nuisance.” Ind. Code § 32–30–6–8 (emphasis added). This should end the debate.
But going even further, Indiana courts have long recognized the availability of injunctive
relief under appropriate circumstances, where money damages are inadequate. For example, in
1881, the Supreme Court explained that “[a] lawful business may be so conducted as to become
a nuisance, but, in order to warrant interference by injunction, the injury must be a material and
essential one.” Owen v. Phillips, 73 Ind. 284, 288 (1881).
10
A century later, the Court of Appeals continues to affirm the availability of permanent
injunctive relief to abate a nuisance. In Gray v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 624 N.E.2d 49, 53
(Ind. Ct. App. 1993), for example, the court explained that “the creator of a nuisance can also be
required to abate the nuisance regardless of who owns the land.” And in Bonewitz v. Parker, 912
N.E.2d 378, 383–84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), the court affirmed the determination that the
defendant’s furnace constituted a nuisance, but reversed for the trial court to make a
determination about whether money damages were adequate. The court explained, “[i]f,
however, the trial court determines that Bonewitz and Dellinger cannot be made whole with a
money judgment, then the court shall issue a total, permanent injunction against Parker
prohibiting operation of his mycelium-drying business.” Id. at 385.
Here, Plaintiffs have alleged that the Defendants’ contamination, which continues to
pervade the Town of Andrews, has and continues to interfere with their use and comfortable
enjoyment of their properties. [DE #10, ¶¶ 194–96.] To the extent damages are insufficient to
remedy the continuing nature of the nuisance—exposure to Defendants’ harmful
contamination—equitable relief in the form of an injunction to remove the nuisance is plainly
available under Indiana law. See, e.g., Ind. Code § 32–30–6–8. Bonewitz, 912 N.E.2d at 385.
Negligence: Injunctive relief is also available under Indiana’s common law on
negligence. Again looking to the past, the Supreme Court recognized, more than a century ago,
the “authority to warrant an injunction against two or more persons who claim to have been
injured at the same time by the negligence of a corporation.” Vandalia Coal Co. v. Lawson, 43
Ind. App. 226 (1909). The availability of injunctive relief in a negligence action was more
recently reaffirmed in City of Gary ex rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 801 N.E.2d 1222,
1246 (Ind. 2003). The court held that “the City’s negligence claim for injunctive relief remains
11
viable to the extent it alleges injury caused by the negligent sale of handguns.” Id.
Plaintiffs’ Complaint asserts that Defendants were negligent in releasing contamination
into the environment, in attempting to remediate that contamination, and in failing to warn the
Plaintiffs about the full extent of that contamination. [DE #10, at ¶¶ 198–204, 210–13.] Further,
Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants’ negligence with respect to the contamination has caused
significant emotional distress. [Id. at ¶¶ 206–08.] Given the fact Defendants’ contamination
remains in the soils, soil gas, groundwater, and utility lines throughout the Town, and thus that
their negligence is ongoing, injunctive relief in the form of a cleanup order is warranted, and is
available under Indiana law.
ELA: Finally, despite the Raytheon Defendants’ assertion, injunctive relief is available as
a part of their ELA claim. The ELA statute provides:
A person may, regardless of whether the person caused or contributed to the
release of a hazardous substance or petroleum into the surface or subsurface soil
or groundwater that poses a risk to human health and the environment, bring an
environmental legal action against a person that caused or contributed to the
release to recover reasonable costs of a removal or remedial action involving the
hazardous substances or petroleum.
Ind. Code Ann. § 13–30–9–2. The Indiana Supreme Court has explained that “[i]t is clear from
the plain language of Ind.Code ch. 13–30–9 that the legislature enacted the ELA statute to shift
the financial burden of environmental remediation to the parties responsible for creating
contaminations.” Reed v. Reid, 980 N.E.2d 277, 286 (Ind. 2012) (quoting Cooper Indus., L.L.C.
v. City of South Bend, 899 N.E.2d 1274, 1284 (Ind. 2009)).
The Raytheon Defendants argue that because the ELA statute is silent on its face as to
injunctive relief, none is available. [DE #13, at 15–17.] There are several problems with
Defendants’ reasoning. First, the Indiana Supreme Court has held that “a court of equity has the
power to require that to be done which should have been done.” Walter v. Balogh, 619 N.E.2d
12
566, 568 (Ind. 1993); see also Hammes, 579 N.E.2d at 1355. Nothing in the ELA statute
precludes an order of injunctive relief, which Indiana trial courts possess the authority to order.
The Raytheon Defendants cite Ind. Code § 34–11–2–11.5, claiming that this section of
the ELA “provides an enumerated list of relief that plaintiffs may seek.” [DE #13, at 15.]
Defendants are incorrect. The Indiana Court of Appeals recently analyzed § 34–11–2–11.5,
finding that it sets out a 10-year statute of limitations for ELA claims. See Elkhart Foundry &
Mach. Co. v. City of Elkhart Redevelopment Comm’n for City of Elkhart, 112 N.E.3d 1123, 1127
(Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied, 124 N.E.3d 39 (Ind. 2019) (concluding that § 34-11-2-11.5 is
a statute of limitations currently applicable to claims under the ELA). It does not purport to
provide an exhaustive list of remedies.
Defendants also argue that relief under the ELA is limited to money damages. [DE #13,
at 15–16.] But unlike other awards of money damages, the money damages awardable under the
ELA are specifically for the costs of a clean-up—either past or prospective costs—including
related attorneys’ fees. See Ind. Code § 13–30–9–3.
Notably, under the ELA, plaintiffs need not have incurred response costs in order to
pursue recovery of future corrective action costs. For example, in the Shell Oil Co. v. Meyer
litigation, the defendant Oil Companies argued that landowners whose wells had become
contaminated with petroleum could not seek future (as yet un-incurred) corrective costs under
the Indiana Underground Storage Tank Act (“USTA”). The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected
this argument as contrary to “the explicit purposes of Indiana’s environmental statutes, stating:
The relevant section does not state that a person who undertakes corrective action
is entitled to receive a contribution only after the actions are taken. Yet that type
of language must be read into the USTA in order to interpret the USTA as the Oil
Companies do.
Shell Oil Co. v. Meyer, 684 N.E.2d 504, 520 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), summarily aff’d in part, 705
13
N.E.2d 962 (1998) (emphasis in original). In fact, in Shell, the oil companies’ petroleum had
contaminated the plaintiffs’ drinking water—just as in this case. After determining liability
against the defendants, “the trial judge utilized the equitable powers granted him by the USTA to
approve a practical remedy for the future corrective action problem.” Id. at 521. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order that the defendants place $2.7 million in an account, to
be used exclusively for the implementation of a remedial plan—except as to the provision that
the prevailing landowners could draw upon that account without notice to the court or the
defendant oil companies. Id. Notably, the Supreme Court summarily affirmed the Court of
Appeals’ affirmance of this equitable remedy. Shell Oil Co. v. Meyer, 705 N.E.2d 962, 981 (Ind.
1998) (“We summarily affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals with respect to the following
issues: future corrective action costs . . . .”).
Shell does not involve Indiana’s Environmental Legal Action statute. However, the ELA
statute—like the USTA statute at issue in Shell—likewise does not contain any provision
requiring a person to incur remedial or removal costs as a prerequisite to filing suit. See Ind.
Code § 13–30–9–2. Notably, the Seventh Circuit has recognized that that ELA and USTA claims
are “alike in nature and substance.” Bernstein v. Bankert, 733 F.3d 190, 219 (7th Cir. 2013).
Ultimately, because liability under the ELA—like the USTA—can support equitable
relief, the net effect of a successful claim for unremediated contamination under the ELA is
equitable relief—i.e., an order requiring the “parties responsible for creating contaminations” to
pay for the remediation. Reed, 980 N.E.2d at 286. If that remediation has not yet occurred, or has
not yet been completed, the responsible parties will be ordered to pay for the remaining costs of
remediation on their own dime. See id.; Shell Oil Co., 684 N.E.2d at 520–21.
3. Even if State Law Did Not Allow Injunctive Relief, the Result Would Be to
Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Prayer for Injunctive Relief, Not to Spontaneously
14
Convert Their Cause of Action.
The fundamental flaw in the Raytheon Defendants’ argument is that, even if they are
right about injunctive relief not being available under Indiana law (and they are not), the remedy
would not be to spontaneously convert the claims into a RCRA citizens’ suit for the purpose of
creating federal jurisdiction. It is not an uncommon phenomenon that a plaintiff requests relief
that is simply not available. The proper remedy is to dismiss that specific prayer for relief, and
possibly allow amendment of the complaint. See, e.g., Jumpfly, Inc. v. Torling, No. 10 C 0385,
2010 WL 1978732, at *3 (N.D. Ill. May 17, 2010) (dismissing prayer for injunctive relief, where
not available under state law). The Raytheon Defendants offer no rationale nor case law, for their
argument that the Court should substitute a different cause of action that was specifically not
pled by Plaintiffs, for the sole purpose of finding federal subject matter jurisdiction.
E. Grable Has No Application to This Case.
Resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims does not require the interpretation of a substantial issue of
federal law. Every case to address Grable in the context of RCRA has similarly held. Notably,
the Raytheon Defendants’ brief does not cite a single case that has found federal “arising under”
jurisdiction based on the type of relief the complaint seeks.
The Raytheon Defendants’ attempt to distinguish the RCRA-specific cases cited in
Plaintiffs’ brief further undermines their position. These cases each far more overtly relied upon
RCRA as a basis for their state-law claims. See Giles, 631 F. Supp. 2d at 989 (civil conspiracy
predicated on violation of RCRA); DeLuca v. Tonawanda Coke Corp., No. 10-CV-859S, 2011
WL 3799985, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2011) (allegations that defendants were in violation of
several federal statutes, including RCRA, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act). Each of
these district courts readily held that the high bar set by Grable was not satisfied. See also, e.g.,
15
Mississippi ex rel. Hood, 2018 WL 1309722, at *4; Abbo-Bradley v. City of Niagara Falls, No.
13-CV-487-JTC, 2013 WL 4505454, at *9 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2013). The same is true here.
There no “actual and substantial” federal question embedded in Plaintiffs’ purely state-law
causes of action for trespass, nuisance, negligence, and ELA. The fact that injunctive relief is
available to Plaintiffs under their state law claims dooms the Raytheon Defendants’ argument.
The Grable test is plainly not satisfied.6
IV. The Raytheon Defendants Had No Objectively Reasonable Basis to Remove this
Case, and Fees Should Be Awarded.
The Raytheon Defendants’ removal and opposition to remand is so bereft of legal
authority as to border on frivolous. There was no “objectively reasonable basis for seeking
removal.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) Further, the Raytheon
Defendants do not even attempt to offer an explanation—let alone justification—for the brazen
timing of their removal, including waiting until the night before the hearing on the Town’s
motion for emergency preliminary injunction to remove the case. [See DE #9, at 7.] Bad faith is
no long required for an award of attorneys’ fees under § 1447(c). See Graff v. Leslie Hindman
Auctioneers, Inc., 299 F. Supp. 3d 928, 938 (N.D. Ill. 2017). But the Raytheon Defendants have
demonstrated it here in spades. An award of fees pursuant to § 1447(c) is warranted.
V. Conclusion.
For these reasons, as well as those Plaintiffs, by counsel, respectfully request this Court
enter an Order remanding this case to the Huntington County Superior Court, grant Plaintiffs an
award of attorneys’ fees for pursuing remand, and for all other just and proper relief.
6 In fact, by seeking only to sever and consolidate the Town’s request (not any cause of action or claim)
for injunctive relief, and conceding that the claims of the 77 other individual Plaintiffs should be
remanded in their entirety to state court [see DE #13, at 22–24], the Raytheon Defendants tacitly admit
that those causes of action—which likewise seek injunctive relief—do not constitute RCRA citizens’ suits
or otherwise involve “arising under” federal jurisdiction under Grable.
16
Rodney L. Michael, Jr., Attorney No. 23681-49
Benjamin A. Wolowski, Attorney No. 33733-49
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on June 29, 2020, a copy of the foregoing was
electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which sent notification of
such filing to all counsel of record. Paper copies were sent by US Mail, postage prepaid, to:
L.D. Williams, Inc. & LDW Development LLC
c/o Richard Delaney
533 Warren St.
Huntington, IN 46750
/s/ Thomas A. Barnard
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-1 filed 06/29/20 page 1 of 5
#=CL#
50261040 Project: Pace Project No.:
RE:
Ms. Susan Hall Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (IN) 8770 Guion Road Suite B Indianapolis, IN 46268
Raytheon Technologies Andrews
Dear Ms. Hall:
Enclosed are the analytical results for sample(s) received by the laboratory on June 27, 2020. The results relate only to the samples included in this report. Results reported herein conform to the applicable TNI/NELAC Standards and the laboratory's Quality Manual, where applicable, unless otherwise noted in the body of the report.
The test results provided in this final report were generated by each of the following laboratories within the Pace Network: • Pace Analytical Services - Indianapolis
If you have any questions concerning this report, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Enclosures
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Pace Analytical Services, LLC 7726 Moller Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 1 of 23
#=CP#
CERTIFICATIONS
Pace Analytical Services Indianapolis 7726 Moller Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268 Illinois Accreditation #: 200074 Indiana Drinking Water Laboratory #: C-49-06 Kansas/TNI Certification #: E-10177 Kentucky UST Agency Interest #: 80226 Kentucky WW Laboratory ID #: 98019 Michigan Drinking Water Laboratory #9050
Ohio VAP Certified Laboratory #: CL0065 Oklahoma Laboratory #: 9204 Texas Certification #: T104704355 West Virginia Certification #: 330 Wisconsin Laboratory #: 999788130 USDA Soil Permit #: P330-19-00257
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 2 of 23
#=SS#
50261040001 FTW/POE-062720 Water 06/27/20 10:21 06/27/20 14:00
50261040002 WWTP-062720 Water 06/27/20 10:33 06/27/20 14:00
50261040003 Town Hall-062720 Water 06/27/20 10:45 06/27/20 14:00
50261040004 Andrews Elementary-062720 Water 06/27/20 11:00 06/27/20 14:00
50261040005 TB Water 06/27/20 08:00 06/27/20 14:00
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 3 of 23
#=SA#
50261040001 FTW/POE-062720 EPA 524.2 48 PASI-IRSW
50261040002 WWTP-062720 EPA 524.2 48 PASI-IRSW
50261040003 Town Hall-062720 EPA 524.2 48 PASI-IRSW
50261040004 Andrews Elementary-062720 EPA 524.2 48 PASI-IRSW
50261040005 TB EPA 524.2 48 PASI-IRSW
PASI-I = Pace Analytical Services - Indianapolis
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 4 of 23
#=HO#
Report Limit QualifiersUnitsMethod Client Sample ID
50261040002 WWTP-062720 Bromodichloromethane 0.65 ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 N20.50EPA 524.2 Chloroform 1.2 ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 N20.50EPA 524.2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 3.9 ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 N20.50EPA 524.2
50261040003 Town Hall-062720 Bromodichloromethane 8.1 ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 N20.50EPA 524.2 Chloroform 9.1 ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 N20.50EPA 524.2 Dibromochloromethane 5.7 ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 N21.0EPA 524.2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 3.7 ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 N20.50EPA 524.2
50261040004 Andrews Elementary-062720 Bromodichloromethane 3.7 ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 N20.50EPA 524.2 Chloroform 4.8 ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 N20.50EPA 524.2 Dibromochloromethane 2.7 ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 N21.0EPA 524.2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 2.0 ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 N20.50EPA 524.2
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 5 of 23
#=AR#
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No. QualReport Limit
Analytical Method: EPA 524.2 Pace Analytical Services - Indianapolis
524.2 MSV
Benzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 71-43-2 N20.50 1 Bromobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 108-86-1 N20.50 1 Bromodichloromethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 75-27-4 N20.50 1 Bromoform ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 75-25-2 N21.0 1 Bromomethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 74-83-9 N25.0 1 Carbon tetrachloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 56-23-5 N20.50 1 Chlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 108-90-7 N20.50 1 Chloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 75-00-3 N20.50 1 Chloroform ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 67-66-3 N20.50 1 Chloromethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 74-87-3 N21.0 1 2-Chlorotoluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 95-49-8 N21.0 1 4-Chlorotoluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 106-43-4 N20.50 1 Dibromochloromethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 124-48-1 N21.0 1 Dibromomethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 74-95-3 N20.50 1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 95-50-1 N20.50 1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 541-73-1 N20.50 1 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 106-46-7 N20.50 1 1,1-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 75-34-3 N20.50 1 1,2-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 107-06-2 N20.50 1 1,1-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 75-35-4 N20.50 1 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 156-59-2 N20.50 1 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 156-60-5 N20.50 1 1,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 78-87-5 N20.50 1 1,3-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 142-28-9 N20.50 1 2,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 594-20-7 N20.50 1 1,1-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 563-58-6 N21.0 1 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 10061-01-5 N20.50 1 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 10061-02-6 N20.50 1 Ethylbenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 100-41-4 N20.50 1 Methylene Chloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 75-09-2 N22.5 1 Methyl-tert-butyl ether ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 1634-04-4 N21.0 1 Styrene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 100-42-5 N20.50 1 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 630-20-6 N20.50 1 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 79-34-5 N21.0 1 Tetrachloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 127-18-4 N20.50 1 Toluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 108-88-3 N21.0 1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 120-82-1 N20.50 1 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 71-55-6 N20.50 1 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 79-00-5 N20.50 1 Trichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 79-01-6 N20.50 1 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 96-18-4 N22.0 1 Vinyl chloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 75-01-4 N20.50 1 Xylene (Total) ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 1330-20-7 N20.50 1 m&p-Xylene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 179601-23-1 N20.50 1 o-Xylene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 95-47-6 N20.50 1
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date: 06/27/2020 08:06 PM
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 6 of 23
#=AR#
524.2 MSV
Surrogates 4-Bromofluorobenzene (S) 98 %. 06/27/20 16:46 460-00-470-130 1 Dibromofluoromethane (S) 102 %. 06/27/20 16:46 1868-53-770-130 1 Toluene-d8 (S) 109 %. 06/27/20 16:46 2037-26-570-130 1
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 7 of 23
#=AR#
524.2 MSV
Benzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 71-43-2 N20.50 1 Bromobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 108-86-1 N20.50 1 Bromodichloromethane 0.65 ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 75-27-4 N20.50 1 Bromoform ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 75-25-2 N21.0 1 Bromomethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 74-83-9 N25.0 1 Carbon tetrachloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 56-23-5 N20.50 1 Chlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 108-90-7 N20.50 1 Chloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 75-00-3 N20.50 1 Chloroform 1.2 ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 67-66-3 N20.50 1 Chloromethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 74-87-3 N21.0 1 2-Chlorotoluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 95-49-8 N21.0 1 4-Chlorotoluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 106-43-4 N20.50 1 Dibromochloromethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 124-48-1 N21.0 1 Dibromomethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 74-95-3 N20.50 1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 95-50-1 N20.50 1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 541-73-1 N20.50 1 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 106-46-7 N20.50 1 1,1-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 75-34-3 N20.50 1 1,2-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 107-06-2 N20.50 1 1,1-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 75-35-4 N20.50 1 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 3.9 ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 156-59-2 N20.50 1 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 156-60-5 N20.50 1 1,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 78-87-5 N20.50 1 1,3-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 142-28-9 N20.50 1 2,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 594-20-7 N20.50 1 1,1-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 563-58-6 N21.0 1 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 10061-01-5 N20.50 1 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 10061-02-6 N20.50 1 Ethylbenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 100-41-4 N20.50 1 Methylene Chloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 75-09-2 N22.5 1 Methyl-tert-butyl ether ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 1634-04-4 N21.0 1 Styrene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 100-42-5 N20.50 1 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 630-20-6 N20.50 1 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 79-34-5 N21.0 1 Tetrachloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 127-18-4 N20.50 1 Toluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 108-88-3 N21.0 1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 120-82-1 N20.50 1 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 71-55-6 N20.50 1 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 79-00-5 N20.50 1 Trichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 79-01-6 N20.50 1 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 96-18-4 N22.0 1 Vinyl chloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 75-01-4 N20.50 1 Xylene (Total) ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 1330-20-7 N20.50 1 m&p-Xylene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 179601-23-1 N20.50 1 o-Xylene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 95-47-6 N20.50 1
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 8 of 23
#=AR#
524.2 MSV
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 9 of 23
#=AR#
Sample: Town Hall-062720 Lab ID: 50261040003 Collected: 06/27/20 10:45 Received: 06/27/20 14:00 Matrix: Water
524.2 MSV
Benzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 71-43-2 N20.50 1 Bromobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 108-86-1 N20.50 1 Bromodichloromethane 8.1 ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 75-27-4 N20.50 1 Bromoform ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 75-25-2 N21.0 1 Bromomethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 74-83-9 N25.0 1 Carbon tetrachloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 56-23-5 N20.50 1 Chlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 108-90-7 N20.50 1 Chloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 75-00-3 N20.50 1 Chloroform 9.1 ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 67-66-3 N20.50 1 Chloromethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 74-87-3 N21.0 1 2-Chlorotoluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 95-49-8 N21.0 1 4-Chlorotoluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 106-43-4 N20.50 1 Dibromochloromethane 5.7 ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 124-48-1 N21.0 1 Dibromomethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 74-95-3 N20.50 1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 95-50-1 N20.50 1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 541-73-1 N20.50 1 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 106-46-7 N20.50 1 1,1-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 75-34-3 N20.50 1 1,2-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 107-06-2 N20.50 1 1,1-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 75-35-4 N20.50 1 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 3.7 ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 156-59-2 N20.50 1 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 156-60-5 N20.50 1 1,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 78-87-5 N20.50 1 1,3-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 142-28-9 N20.50 1 2,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 594-20-7 N20.50 1 1,1-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 563-58-6 N21.0 1 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 10061-01-5 N20.50 1 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 10061-02-6 N20.50 1 Ethylbenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 100-41-4 N20.50 1 Methylene Chloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 75-09-2 N22.5 1 Methyl-tert-butyl ether ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 1634-04-4 N21.0 1 Styrene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 100-42-5 N20.50 1 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 630-20-6 N20.50 1 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 79-34-5 N21.0 1 Tetrachloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 127-18-4 N20.50 1 Toluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 108-88-3 N21.0 1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 120-82-1 N20.50 1 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 71-55-6 N20.50 1 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 79-00-5 N20.50 1 Trichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 79-01-6 N20.50 1 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 96-18-4 N22.0 1 Vinyl chloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 75-01-4 N20.50 1 Xylene (Total) ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 1330-20-7 N20.50 1 m&p-Xylene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 179601-23-1 N20.50 1 o-Xylene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 95-47-6 N20.50 1
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 10 of 23
#=AR#
Sample: Town Hall-062720 Lab ID: 50261040003 Collected: 06/27/20 10:45 Received: 06/27/20 14:00 Matrix: Water
524.2 MSV
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 11 of 23
#=AR#
Lab ID: 50261040004 Collected: 06/27/20 11:00 Received: 06/27/20 14:00 Matrix: Water
524.2 MSV
Benzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 71-43-2 N20.50 1 Bromobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 108-86-1 N20.50 1 Bromodichloromethane 3.7 ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 75-27-4 N20.50 1 Bromoform ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 75-25-2 N21.0 1 Bromomethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 74-83-9 N25.0 1 Carbon tetrachloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 56-23-5 N20.50 1 Chlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 108-90-7 N20.50 1 Chloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 75-00-3 N20.50 1 Chloroform 4.8 ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 67-66-3 N20.50 1 Chloromethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 74-87-3 N21.0 1 2-Chlorotoluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 95-49-8 N21.0 1 4-Chlorotoluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 106-43-4 N20.50 1 Dibromochloromethane 2.7 ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 124-48-1 N21.0 1 Dibromomethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 74-95-3 N20.50 1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 95-50-1 N20.50 1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 541-73-1 N20.50 1 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 106-46-7 N20.50 1 1,1-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 75-34-3 N20.50 1 1,2-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 107-06-2 N20.50 1 1,1-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 75-35-4 N20.50 1 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 2.0 ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 156-59-2 N20.50 1 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 156-60-5 N20.50 1 1,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 78-87-5 N20.50 1 1,3-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 142-28-9 N20.50 1 2,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 594-20-7 N20.50 1 1,1-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 563-58-6 N21.0 1 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 10061-01-5 N20.50 1 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 10061-02-6 N20.50 1 Ethylbenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 100-41-4 N20.50 1 Methylene Chloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 75-09-2 N22.5 1 Methyl-tert-butyl ether ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 1634-04-4 N21.0 1 Styrene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 100-42-5 N20.50 1 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 630-20-6 N20.50 1 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 79-34-5 N21.0 1 Tetrachloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 127-18-4 N20.50 1 Toluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 108-88-3 N21.0 1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 120-82-1 N20.50 1 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 71-55-6 N20.50 1 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 79-00-5 N20.50 1 Trichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 79-01-6 N20.50 1 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 96-18-4 N22.0 1 Vinyl chloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 75-01-4 N20.50 1 Xylene (Total) ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 1330-20-7 N20.50 1 m&p-Xylene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 179601-23-1 N20.50 1 o-Xylene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 95-47-6 N20.50 1
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 12 of 23
#=AR#
Lab ID: 50261040004 Collected: 06/27/20 11:00 Received: 06/27/20 14:00 Matrix: Water
524.2 MSV
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 13 of 23
#=AR#
Sample: TB Lab ID: 50261040005 Collected: 06/27/20 08:00 Received: 06/27/20 14:00 Matrix: Water
524.2 MSV
Benzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 71-43-2 N20.50 1 Bromobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 108-86-1 N20.50 1 Bromodichloromethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 75-27-4 N20.50 1 Bromoform ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 75-25-2 N21.0 1 Bromomethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 74-83-9 N25.0 1 Carbon tetrachloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 56-23-5 N20.50 1 Chlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 108-90-7 N20.50 1 Chloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 75-00-3 N20.50 1 Chloroform ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 67-66-3 N20.50 1 Chloromethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 74-87-3 N21.0 1 2-Chlorotoluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 95-49-8 N21.0 1 4-Chlorotoluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 106-43-4 N20.50 1 Dibromochloromethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 124-48-1 N21.0 1 Dibromomethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 74-95-3 N20.50 1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 95-50-1 N20.50 1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 541-73-1 N20.50 1 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 106-46-7 N20.50 1 1,1-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 75-34-3 N20.50 1 1,2-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 107-06-2 N20.50 1 1,1-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 75-35-4 N20.50 1 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 156-59-2 N20.50 1 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 156-60-5 N20.50 1 1,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 78-87-5 N20.50 1 1,3-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 142-28-9 N20.50 1 2,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 594-20-7 N20.50 1 1,1-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 563-58-6 N21.0 1 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 10061-01-5 N20.50 1 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 10061-02-6 N20.50 1 Ethylbenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 100-41-4 N20.50 1 Methylene Chloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 75-09-2 N22.5 1 Methyl-tert-butyl ether ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 1634-04-4 N21.0 1 Styrene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 100-42-5 N20.50 1 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 630-20-6 N20.50 1 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 79-34-5 N21.0 1 Tetrachloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 127-18-4 N20.50 1 Toluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 108-88-3 N21.0 1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 120-82-1 N20.50 1 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 71-55-6 N20.50 1 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 79-00-5 N20.50 1 Trichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 79-01-6 N20.50 1 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 96-18-4 N22.0 1 Vinyl chloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 75-01-4 N20.50 1 Xylene (Total) ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 1330-20-7 N20.50 1 m&p-Xylene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 179601-23-1 N20.50 1 o-Xylene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 95-47-6 N20.50 1
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 14 of 23
#=AR#
Sample: TB Lab ID: 50261040005 Collected: 06/27/20 08:00 Received: 06/27/20 14:00 Matrix: Water
524.2 MSV
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 15 of 23
#=QC#
Pace Project No.: Project:
50261040 Raytheon Technologies Andrews
Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result.
QC Batch: QC Batch Method:
Analysis Method: Analysis Description:
Parameter Units Blank Result
Matrix: Water
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/L ND 1.0 N206/27/20 16:20 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 1,1-Dichloroethane ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 1,1-Dichloroethene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 1,1-Dichloropropene ug/L ND 1.0 N206/27/20 16:20 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ug/L ND 2.0 N206/27/20 16:20 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 1,2-Dichloroethane ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 1,2-Dichloropropane ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 1,3-Dichloropropane ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 2,2-Dichloropropane ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 2-Chlorotoluene ug/L ND 1.0 N206/27/20 16:20 4-Chlorotoluene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 Benzene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 Bromobenzene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 Bromodichloromethane ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 Bromoform ug/L ND 1.0 N206/27/20 16:20 Bromomethane ug/L ND 5.0 N206/27/20 16:20 Carbon tetrachloride ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 Chlorobenzene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 Chloroethane ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 Chloroform ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 Chloromethane ug/L ND 1.0 N206/27/20 16:20 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 Dibromochloromethane ug/L ND 1.0 N206/27/20 16:20 Dibromomethane ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 Ethylbenzene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 m&p-Xylene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 Methyl-tert-butyl ether ug/L ND 1.0 N206/27/20 16:20 Methylene Chloride ug/L ND 2.5 N206/27/20 16:20 o-Xylene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 Styrene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 Tetrachloroethene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 Toluene ug/L ND 1.0 N206/27/20 16:20
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 16 of 23
#=QC#
Parameter Units Blank Result
Matrix: Water
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 Trichloroethene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 Vinyl chloride ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 Xylene (Total) ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 4-Bromofluorobenzene (S) %. 100 70-130 06/27/20 16:20 Dibromofluoromethane (S) %. 100 70-130 06/27/20 16:20 Toluene-d8 (S) %. 111 70-130 06/27/20 16:20
Parameter Units LCS
2628305LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: LCSSpike
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/L 46.7 N250 93 70-130 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/L 50.1 N250 100 70-130 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/L 54.2 N250 108 70-130 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ug/L 50.4 N250 101 70-130 1,1-Dichloroethane ug/L 54.8 N250 110 70-130 1,1-Dichloroethene ug/L 51.9 N250 104 70-130 1,1-Dichloropropene ug/L 53.2 N250 106 70-130 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ug/L 45.2 N250 90 70-130 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ug/L 49.1 N250 98 70-130 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ug/L 45.1 N250 90 70-130 1,2-Dichloroethane ug/L 44.4 N250 89 70-130 1,2-Dichloropropane ug/L 52.2 N250 104 70-130 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ug/L 46.2 N250 92 70-130 1,3-Dichloropropane ug/L 53.6 N250 107 70-130 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ug/L 45.0 N250 90 70-130 2,2-Dichloropropane ug/L 53.5 N250 107 70-130 2-Chlorotoluene ug/L 50.5 N250 101 70-130 4-Chlorotoluene ug/L 48.4 N250 97 70-130 Benzene ug/L 50.0 N250 100 70-130 Bromobenzene ug/L 48.2 N250 96 70-130 Bromodichloromethane ug/L 44.8 N250 90 70-130 Bromoform ug/L 41.3 N250 83 70-130 Bromomethane ug/L 45.3 N250 91 70-130 Carbon tetrachloride ug/L 51.1 N250 102 70-130 Chlorobenzene ug/L 49.0 N250 98 70-130 Chloroethane ug/L 41.9 N250 84 70-130 Chloroform ug/L 44.2 N250 88 70-130 Chloromethane ug/L 48.4 N250 97 70-130 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L 48.2 N250 96 70-130 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ug/L 56.2 N250 112 70-130 Dibromochloromethane ug/L 45.8 N250 92 70-130 Dibromomethane ug/L 45.2 N250 90 70-130
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 17 of 23
#=QC#
Parameter Units LCS
2628305LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: LCSSpike
Ethylbenzene ug/L 50.7 N250 101 70-130 m&p-Xylene ug/L 102 N2100 102 70-130 Methyl-tert-butyl ether ug/L 48.4 N250 97 70-130 Methylene Chloride ug/L 51.6 N250 103 70-130 o-Xylene ug/L 49.1 N250 98 70-130 Styrene ug/L 49.2 N250 98 70-130 Tetrachloroethene ug/L 51.0 N250 102 70-130 Toluene ug/L 53.8 N250 108 70-130 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L 50.8 N250 102 70-130 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ug/L 49.8 N250 100 70-130 Trichloroethene ug/L 48.7 N250 97 70-130 Vinyl chloride ug/L 57.0 N250 114 70-130 Xylene (Total) ug/L 151 N2150 101 70-130 4-Bromofluorobenzene (S) %. 105 70-130 Dibromofluoromethane (S) %. 97 70-130 Toluene-d8 (S) %. 107 70-130
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 18 of 23
#=QL#
QUALIFIERS
DEFINITIONS
DF - Dilution Factor, if reported, represents the factor applied to the reported data due to dilution of the sample aliquot. ND - Not Detected at or above adjusted reporting limit. TNTC - Too Numerous To Count J - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit. MDL - Adjusted Method Detection Limit. PQL - Practical Quantitation Limit. RL - Reporting Limit - The lowest concentration value that meets project requirements for quantitative data with known precision and bias for a specific analyte in a specific matrix. S - Surrogate 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine decomposes to and cannot be separated from Azobenzene using Method 8270. The result for each analyte is a combined concentration. Consistent with EPA guidelines, unrounded data are displayed and have been used to calculate % recovery and RPD values. LCS(D) - Laboratory Control Sample (Duplicate) MS(D) - Matrix Spike (Duplicate) DUP - Sample Duplicate RPD - Relative Percent Difference NC - Not Calculable. SG - Silica Gel - Clean-Up U - Indicates the compound was analyzed for, but not detected. N-Nitrosodiphenylamine decomposes and cannot be separated from Diphenylamine using Method 8270. The result reported for each analyte is a combined concentration. Pace Analytical is TNI accredited. Contact your Pace PM for the current list of accredited analytes. TNI - The NELAC Institute.
ANALYTE QUALIFIERS The lab does not hold NELAC/TNI accreditation for this parameter but other accreditations/certifications may apply. A complete list of accreditations/certifications is available upon request.
N2
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 19 of 23
#=CR#
Lab ID Sample ID QC Batch Method QC Batch Analytical Method Analytical Batch
50261040001 569587FTW/POE-062720 EPA 524.2 50261040002 569587WWTP-062720 EPA 524.2 50261040003 569587Town Hall-062720 EPA 524.2 50261040004 569587Andrews Elementary-062720 EPA 524.2 50261040005 569587TB EPA 524.2
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 20 of 23
Page 21 of 23
Page 22 of 23
Page 23 of 23

Documents

PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION TO …